CLN 23:2 (Spring Sapir’s Psychological and Psychiatric Perspectives on Culture For Sapir, the importance of viewing the speaking and acting individual as the locus of the historically (socially) transmitted facts of language and culture was a persistent theme, Indeed, we might see it as the theme par excellence of his work, which deepens in intensity during the course of his scientific career. Itisa theme that is clearly present in the Boasian intellectual formation that Sapit himself was transmined, but Sapir’s particu- lar development of it has to very profound ‘consequences that Boss himself—and cor- tainly none ofthe other Boasians or inheritors oftheirlegacy—would notreadily accommo- date, Firs, Sepis's evolving view of the problem of “psychologicalreality”ledhi, in the field of language at frst, tothe develop- ‘ment of an exact notion of evidence for the systemic or systematic naure of cultural phe- ‘nomena, what Kluckhohn (1941) and others [ater would call its “pattem” aspects it was at ‘once an epistemological as well as phenom ‘enal discovery. Second, Sapit’s continued insistence on studying the residuum of cul- tural patteming, the psychologically “unreal” from the orginal Boasian vantage point, f- nally led him to see the “psychiatric reality.” sone might cal it, of linguistic and cultural ‘phenomena in general processes of symbol- ism, at which level both the unconscious and the conscious or aware dynamics ofthe ind- vidual-in-culture were expressible. Itismypurpose heretogivesomethingof the chronology of his gradual integration of these themes, based onarcading ofhisoeuvre ‘and related material, that is, to begin the historiography of these ideas. It is also my ‘purpose to demonstrat inthis way something of the intelectual—as oppose to personal, o,f you will, “psychiatric"—reasons why language served Sapiras the object par excel- Jence of investigation in drawing out this line of reasoning. ‘For, a number of things are important 10 ‘observe inthis connection. From a very carly petiod, presumably influenced at east in part ‘nyBoas'sownstyle of discourse andinellec- eo Michael Silverstein The University of Chicago tualagenda,Sapirusestermssuchaspsycho- logical in his tiguistc writing, both public andepistolary. This persist and infact inten- sifiesin his theoretical writing, spawning new terminological distinctions such as the dis- tinct term “psychiatric” ata later time. Such usage disappears from his technical Tinguis- tics, which was largely oriented to historical problems of reconstruction by the 1930s,0r10 supervising collaborative descriptive work already being pulled itothe orbitof emerging ‘mainstream nonanthropological descriptive linguistics. But interestingly, language as such becomes the very exemplary material ‘during this period for Sapir’s more general theoretical pieces about the nature of culture. ‘Thisis 0 from the Chicago period (mid 1925) forward, and itis especially noticeable inthe ‘sudent course notss from his “Psychology of Culture” seminars at Yale during the 1930s? Sapir uses language asthe material parexcel- Tence to demonstrate the true complexity of theindividual vs, groupaspectsofcultue,just ‘When linguistcsasa technical enterprise takes off as a separate scientific tradition! The thrust of Sapir’s work would have access {uted the constitution ofa ‘psychiatriclinguis- tics" in practice that would in effect have run ‘quite counter to the very result of his seem ingly structural discoveries. No wonder that in the 1930s, Sapir longed for either a pore linguistics position or one of a more frankly psychiatric sort, such as was being contem- plated atthe William Alanson White Institute atthe time of his death? Perhapsthecrucial mediating problemin ‘Sapic's whote relationship tothe issues T want to bring up consists of how consciousness — historically manifested in cultural products, yet predicated of the individual, who is the locus of manifestation—is related to a sub- merged, or unconscious, or intuitive “form- feeling,” as Sapir called it, the exact ro0is of ‘which in society and inthe individual must be somehow accounted for. The problem is already clearly the focus of Boas’s discussion ‘oflanguagein the “Introduction” tothe Hand- ‘book of American Indian Languages of 1911, ‘and of his The Mind of Primitive Man of the same year. In the Handbook (19118:63-73), ‘Boas contrasts language with the rest ofthe ‘matir of ethnology in terms ofthe nature of conscious processes of both implicit and ex- plicit“cultaral” formation. Atonce, language is the most “cultural” of cultural phenomena, ‘andthe mostremoved from therest. The wosT cultura, becanse if one is interested in the various specific traditions by virtue of which ‘groups of people classify and fferentiate the bjecis of their experience, language as a system of representation of conceptual reality provides the clearest examplo of this vast array of distinct possibilities for classifica- tion! The tzasr cultural, on the other hand, becausclanguage,unlikevirtually every other cultural phenomenon, remains unconscious to its users; on the dimension of time, it remains unaffected in its historical develop- ‘ment by what Boas considered disturbing influences of secondary rationalization and “aru history” of ideas, of concepis and clas- sificatory principlesembestie in cultural prog- wos, Interesting paradox, which was 16 be resolved in two distinct ways by Sapir and by Sopit's associate Whorf. For Sapir, as I said ‘tefore, developed a whole empirically ad- ‘equate way of conceptualizing the intuitive “psychological reality” of linguistic structure. ‘And, building both on this method of analy- sis especially as elaborated by Bloomfield (1933)—and on Boas’ variousremarks about ‘what parts of language were, n fac, subjoct1o secondary rationalization, Whorf ((19361956; [1937}1956; [1940]1956; {1941a)1956; [1941b]1956) was able to e- alc the issue 0 the paradox was only appar ent, the frozen projection of an inherently ialectic process of structure and conscious ness? Tks usual to associate Sapir's invotve- ‘mnt with dis issue only with a few passingCLN 23:2 {Spring-Summer 1992) CLIN 23:2 ‘Spring-Summer 992), references in his ook Language of 1921 and jn some items from the late 1920s, until the appearance of his paper “The psychological reality of phonemes,” which appeared in French in 1933, and only late (reprinted by ‘Mandelbaum in 1949] in English. Of course there are allusions tothe issue in his paper on “Sound patiems in language,” printed in the ‘nauguralissue ofthe joummal Language(1925), ‘where a thoroughgoing psychologism per- vvades the vocabulary of presentation. But ‘most later commentators, from Twaddell in his 1935 monograph through Postal in his 1968 one, have not read the 1933 paper as the clminationin printof the essentially Boasian point, couched in essentially Boasian lan- ‘guage, thatis continuous as a theoretical con- ‘cemof Sapir’ since before the middle ofthe teens. Indeed, the argument of Sapr’s 1925. ‘paper is couched in terms AGADSsT absolute, ‘universal phonetics asthe terms in which to ‘carry out the historical linguists task of deal- ing with the dynamics of sound systems in tanguage. And the 1933 paper goes further, not even oriented 1 historical processes, but ‘wishing to establish “that no entity in human experience can be adequately defined as the ‘mechanical sum or product of its physical properties” ((1933]1949:46). In dealing with the sounds of language, this necessitates dis- tinguishing the absolute, phonetically univer- sal descriptors from the theoretically postu- lated “phonemes” of the specific linguistic system, And Sapir’s lesson here is that (1) investigators of other languages themselves ‘consciously set out to capture the sounds, but bring tothe task a Consciousness thats itself distorting of what is significant in the other language; and (2) native consciousness ofthe sound systemisafunction ofthe interreation- ships among all the phonemes (or “tue sounds") of a language. Why? Typically ‘Boasian, Sapir frames the negatively-enunci- ated principle: “tis exceedingly difficult, if ‘not impossible to teach a native 1 take ac- ‘count of purely mechanical phonetic varia- tions whichhavenophoncmicreality forhira” ((193311949:48). So psychological reality is a CULTURAL, consciousness, a way that con sciousness can be made to resonate, in task- oriented simzations such as being asked 10 ‘write one's language given a whole tool-kitof phonescsymbolstowhichonehasbeen trained to criterion, And Sapir is saying that con- sciousness RESONATES wr (“clicks,” in his ———- 12 vyemacular style) the unconscious or intuitive “form-feeling” of a phonemic patiern—or any other such patern—the intra structure of which is postlated by a grammarian on certain analytic principles. Itseems tome that justsuch aconch is expressed already in Sapt’s remarkable letier of 8 September 1916, tA. L. Kroeber (Golla 1984:220-221fleter208],cxcerptfrom original), in which the thesis ofthe 1933 paper and even the first, major exannple, are pre- sented, on the differentiation of phonetic p from b in the Paiute languages. “You say,” Sapir writes to Kroeber, “that your man from Pyramid Lake leamed to write Norther Paiute ‘very quickly and quite accurately in all respects except differentiation of surds and sonants. Of course, 1 do ‘not know the instructions he received on this point, but I hope you will pacion my frankness if1 suggest thatthe rouble may not have been entirely his own. Pract- cally anyone starting with an English-speaking bias would tke great pains to make clear to an informant the phonetic difference between the initial p of such a word as pabi'i‘elde brother’ and the ‘medial bof te same word. AS a ‘mater of fact, however, the native informant would be sure to be ppazaled, 2s the difference between the two, while real from an analytic a standpoint, is of purely secondary ‘consequence of mechanical factors. In other words, 10 the native ‘consciousness, the two sounds are identical.” ‘Note the way that Sapir speaks ofthe “reality” Of the difference between p and b from the ‘phonetic (or“analytical" stance of the inves- tigator—in this case, the slightly tweaked Kroeber’—as reinforced by the particular phonemic pattern of his own language, En- lish, inv which p and” are indeed also phonemically distinct. Notealsothat,justlike ‘Kroeber's phonemic “Teality"—as itis now revealed to be—the native is postulated to ‘have aconsciousness, namely the pand b are ‘identical, thats, that sounds {p} and (b] count asthe same thing. ‘Now Sapir (Golla 1984:221 flewer 208), ‘excerpt from original) goesontorubitin from the opposite point of view. “On the other hhand,thereis,as youknow," flattering Krocher ‘with atributed knowledge, “a series of geminated surd stops, ‘which occur medially. These, Thave ‘not the slightest doubr, could be casily differentiated by a native from ‘the medial sonanis. To our ears ‘these geminated stops sound ‘preury much like the initial tungeminated stops. Hence, we tend to weite with a p what is, organically speaking, both aspecial form of one consonant and a totally different consonant, and to write with b another special form of the former consonant. No wonder the native would get confused. Evidently the ‘proper thing to have him dos either to have him write consistently b for all forms ofthe (eg. babi) first consonant, and p forthe (eg. tipi ‘strong’ _Beminated stop, orp for al forms (ex. papi ‘of the first consonant and pp 0 m sone other modification ofp forthe (eg. pi) sooond/. Tam almost cenain that if this method were adopted you would find tha the native would catch on surprisingly readily.” So Sapiris trying to teach Kroeber about the practicalities of both systematic ‘veriffereniation of psychologically salient categories by one’s own prior expectations, - and their systematic underdifferentiation. 19 neither of these cases wil i be easy 10 get8 native wo take conscious note ofthe proposed ‘means of representing his or her sysiem. But ‘where one hits on the systematic represenia~ tion of what is indeed in the system, presto! ‘Observe how Sapir (Golla-1984:221-fleuer 208, excerpt from original) continues: “have had enough experience with teaching Indians to write their own Tanguage to know that there is nothing simpler if one has only ‘mastered the organically significant